The Intellectual People Podcast - Amir from Audio Science Review (ASR)

One thing is missing from measurements in determining how good a component is - each human’s brain and ears, and how the music subjectively sounds to each of us. Can’t measure that.
 
RDSChicago said:
One thing is missing from measurements in determining how good a component is - each human’s brain and ears, and how the music subjectively sounds to each of us. Can’t measure that.
Click to expand...
The underlying philosophy of Audio Science Review is that this is a red herring. If subjectivity is given free rein then everything (every component, speaker, etc) is good because one can almost always find someone who likes it at some point in time. Our goal should be to continue to strive for the "best" sound reproduction, i.e. as close to the original source (live music) as possible. ASR's error is in assuming that this goal can be defined and reached solely through measurements, but the opposite of that (that it can only be reached through subjective opinion) is equally or perhaps even more in error. JGH's and JA's approach is more reasonable for reviewers and probably for designers as well, and the acknowledged best in both fields appear to adhere to this (sorry, most TAS reviewers, this is why you should be put out to pasture)
 
rbbert said:
The underlying philosophy of Audio Science Review is that this is a red herring. If subjectivity is given free rein then everything (every component, speaker, etc) is good because one can almost always find someone who likes it at some point in time. Our goal should be to continue to strive for the "best" sound reproduction, i.e. as close to the original source (live music) as possible. ASR's error is in assuming that this goal can be defined and reached solely through measurements, but the opposite of that (that it can only be reached through subjective opinion) is equally or perhaps even more in error. JGH's and JA's approach is more reasonable for reviewers and probably for designers as well, and the acknowledged best in both fields appear to adhere to this (sorry, most TAS reviewers, this is why you should be put out to pasture)
Click to expand...

Generally agree with this. I stopped paying for TAS a couple of years ago (they still send it to me every month). I definitely prefer the subjective/objective approach employed by Stereophile and will be keeping that subscription. Plus, their writers are more entertaining IMO. I do this for entertainment after all.
 
MPW said:
Generally agree with this. I stopped paying for TAS a couple of years ago (they still send it to me every month). I definitely prefer the subjective/objective approach employed by Stereophile and will be keeping that subscription. Plus, their writers are more entertaining IMO. I do this for entertainment after all.
Click to expand...

HiFI News does some measurements, but I find their reviews a little “light” and their measurements minimal. They spend 90% of their review telling you about the company, the size, shape, the box, etc and two paragraphs about the sound. Their measurements are useful, but not as in-depth as John’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
MPW said:
Generally agree with this. I stopped paying for TAS a couple of years ago (they still send it to me every month). I definitely prefer the subjective/objective approach employed by Stereophile and will be keeping that subscription. Plus, their writers are more entertaining IMO. I do this for entertainment after all.
Click to expand...

me too. cut TAS out 10 years ago and never have felt the need to return and read JV ramble on about his new super duper reference.

on the other hand, I still love reading JA measurements of speakers and amps in his "retired" role
 
RDSChicago said:
One thing is missing from measurements in determining how good a component is - each human’s brain and ears, and how the music subjectively sounds to each of us.
Click to expand...
That is precisely, by definition, what a controlled/blind listening test is...and why it is the de facto standard of all audio/perceptual science. Ears/brain determine what sounds good via music.

RDSChicago said:
Can’t measure that.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. That's what Dr Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Jorma Salmi, Earl Geddes, et al do, determine what measurements correlate (component/speakers/distortions/etc) to "sounds good" to ears/brain. Unbeknown to audiophiles there is an entire field of science devoted to just that.
The same science that knows very well that there are factors that overwhelm, past ears/brain.
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
AES E-Library >> The Influence of Hearing and Sight on the Perceptual Evaluation of Home Speaker Systems
Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness | PNAS
etc, etc.
So what your ears/brain like is easily determined. What happens outside of that with 20+ other factors, not so much.

cheers,

AJ
 
One problem with DBT's with regard to home audio systems is that it is nearly impossible to perform one in that setting. DBT's such as Harmon performs are useful in determining sonic preferences but not so useful in evaluating meaningful differences in components in a home system where there are so many other influences on the eventual sound quality of the system.
 
Out of curiosity I took a look at some of ASR's DAC reviews. I'm not sure why even someone totally engineering (measurement) oriented would think that linearity and low noise and distortion are the only useful measurements for a DAC, much less the only determinants of its audio qualities?
 
rbbert said:
One problem with DBT's with regard to home audio systems is that it is nearly impossible to perform one in that setting.
Click to expand...
Speakers yes absolutely. Components, etc, no absolutely not. Those would be easily performed.

rbbert said:
DBT's such as Harmon performs are useful in determining sonic preferences but not so useful in evaluating meaningful differences in components in a home system where there are so many other influences on the eventual sound quality of the system.
Click to expand...
If by other influences you mean sight, belief, price, knowledge, etc. then yes.
A DB listening test can only tell you what ears/brain detect, like, prefer, etc.
It absolutely cannot tell what an uncontrolled, sighted "experience" will yield. The links I provided make that very clear.
Hopefully I've made myself very clear, I don't advocate for blind listening test to determine what one will "experience", since I'm acutely aware of the differences. I actually advocate for buying whatever pleases you best, regardless of cost, measurements, etc, etc.
I can only advise that some things wont play nice with each other, room, etc based on measurements. That doesn't mean someone wont like it.

rbbert said:
Out of curiosity I took a look at some of ASR's DAC reviews. I'm not sure why even someone totally engineering (measurement) oriented would think that linearity and low noise and distortion are the only useful measurements for a DAC, much less the only determinants of its audio qualities?
Click to expand...
ASR does no valid listening tests. The "rankings", etc. are a joke.

cheers,

AJ
 
rbbert said:
The underlying philosophy of Audio Science Review is that this is a red herring. If subjectivity is given free rein then everything (every component, speaker, etc) is good because one can almost always find someone who likes it at some point in time. Our goal should be to continue to strive for the "best" sound reproduction, i.e. as close to the original source (live music) as possible. ASR's error is in assuming that this goal can be defined and reached solely through measurements, but the opposite of that (that it can only be reached through subjective opinion) is equally or perhaps even more in error. JGH's and JA's approach is more reasonable for reviewers and probably for designers as well, and the acknowledged best in both fields appear to adhere to this (sorry, most TAS reviewers, this is why you should be put out to pasture)
Click to expand...

Thanks, appreciate it.
 
I have the highest regard for measurements and objectivity. But folks like Amir give objectivists a bad name.

In Hindi we have a saying, "bandar ke haath mein bandook" which literally translates to "gun in the hands of a monkey". I find that it pretty accurately describes the mayhem that follows whatever Amir does at ASR.



.
 
Objectivity and measurements are important to me. But it is not everything. I also believe that BT are helpful in determining what is really important and what actually make a difference beyond somebody’s Subjective opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top